On the face of it, it is about a humanitarian cause. bombs and mines left over from the Viet Nam war have left an appalling trail of suffering in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia. The United States deserves some criticism for this and the world must do what it can to help victims and clean up the mess.

But, once again, RTE documentary programming will be focusing on victims of American foreign policy. The succession of such programs in recent years evokes sympathy for Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, leftist guerrillas in L:atin America, and now the neocommunist dictatorship in Laos.

There will certainly be some criticism of the Laotian government. But it’s a fair bet that the Vientianne dictatorship will get off lightly compared with rightist juntas in Latin America of the 1970s or other rightist targets. When it comes to foreign affauirs coverage beyond Europe, there is little real difference between RTE and Radio Havana Cuba. It is invcestigative journalism, but the invrestigations all poiint in the same direction and have the same predictable conclusion.

the commercial media under BCCI auspices do not present a counter-balance. The themes of equality, empowerment, inclusion and sustainability – the motifs of the political left – are increasingly built into BCCI guidelines, thus flavoring the “independent” sector too. Where RTE leads, Newstalk wil;l follow. One only has to listen to THE WIDE ANGLE or similar programs to hear the result.

A whole range of global issues and perspectives is simply unreported in the Irish broadcast media, except when introduced for target practice or a minimal level of plausible deniability.

Old Progressive Irish media continue to report on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square incident with a key qualification: the West would be wrong to assume that this was about a struggle for Western-style democracy. It is true, after all, that leading student protesters denied they were trying to verthrow the state. Some talked of Communist reform or a better form of socialism. And, of course, to the extyent that Tiananmen was rooted in internal Chinese politics, the outcome could never fit a precise Western paradigm.

But this analysis is like the same kind of thinking that reflected Irish Times and RTE praise for the “civic” NGOs in East Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1989. Once change got under way, these mystical third forces just slipped away.

China’s economy is, in some respects, very capitalist already. Now, we have the diaries of Zhou Enlai showing that he, a Communist Party leader, saw democratization as leading to something very close to Western liberal democracy. Other East Asian democracies – S Korea, Japan, ROC/Taiwan etc .. have their Asian characteristics, their Confucian traditionalism and all the rest. But they are still recognizably “bourgeois democracies,” to use the old left’s term of abuse. Though the path might be tortupous, this is also the likely outcome of any real opening in China (assuming it does not trigger a rightist authoritarian backlash).

But old Progressive Irish media outlets only reluctantly celebrate liberal democracy in Eastern Europe and deny its relevance to China and Cuba.

Irish policymakers should treat the challenge of regiume change and democratization in Communist states on the basis that the struggle for democracy is indivisible and should be constituted as a component of Ireland’s moral voice and national interest on the world stage. Academic and media obfuscation designed to sideline this issue should be challenged wherever they occur.

Commentary from our EastWestEurope blog:

Looking for a Home in Europe

Irish politicians and journalists often lament the disconnect between European election campaigns and the great issues of EU policy. They explain this by arguing that the perceived weakness of the European Parliament turns it into an expendable plaything, a tool which to beat national governments over the head in a “mid-term” revolt. Or perhaps a place to put either trainee or has-been politicians.

But the attitudes of Irish parties to EP party groupings give the game away. Those same politicians who lecture the public on its ignorance of European issues haven’t a clue when it comes to the ideological families of European politics. They have to join groups, as if it were some great boring chore.

Fianna Fail Goes Fishing

Fianna Fail traditionally resided among the Gaullist bloc. This made some sense. Gaullism is moderately conservative, nationalist, anti-Atlanticist and relatively pro-business – with a statist, Keynsian or mercantilist tinge. Since the Gaullists morphed into the UMP, and even started to emulate at least some Anglo-Saxon practices under Sarkozy, that bloc lost its purpose. Sarkozy moved toward the People’s Party/Christian Democrat bloc. Fianna Fail couldn’t go there, since that space was occupied by Fine Gael. So now they are joining the Liberals, the home of their former coalition partners, the defunct Progressive Democrats.

The problem here is that the Liberals and FF may not get on so well. Many EU Liberal parties are far-out libertarians on social issues. While Fianna Fail has liberalized, it still has a strongly conservative base in many parts of Ireland. But even on economics, there could be trouble ahead. The Progressive Democrats were founded to advance a free market philosophy. Fianna Fail only adopted this with great reluctance. Does this move mean that, even after the death of the PDs, Fianna Fail is thoroughly converted to “neoliberalism”?

At the Heart of Europe?

Fine Gael is no better. As we have pointed out in these pages before, many Fine Gaelers are really social democrats and even squirm at the word “Christian” in any context.

Some now want to explore a link with David Cameron’s Conservatives in the UK. But Fine Gael’s great insistence on being”at the heart of Europe” will be tested to the limits if they go there. FG is with a bigger, winning bloc when it allies itself with the Christian Democrats. But is it better to be a small party in a big group or a relatively bigger party in a smaller group?

And, are Your Friends … Really …  Our Friends?

Labour is much more comfortable in its Socialist bloc, even if they too squirm – at the “s” word in this instance. But perhaps they should look at how the EP Socialists see Ireland’s enterprise-friendly taxation regime. The hectoring of the Irish by German Social Democrats would be unacceptable from any other source. Or perhaps Labour hasn’t noticed that contradiction either.

Foreign Minister Micheal Martin indicated that the Fianna Fail party would not unseat Brian Cowen, after Fianna Fail scored disappointing results in local and European elections this weekend. Martin is tipped as an ambitious party member with considerable experience and gravitas, despite questionable positions he has taken on EU policy and, as we have reported,  on Irish relations with Cuba. In the climate in which both reporting on and critical analysis of foreign policy are limited, Martin’s Cuba policy will not register at all if he runs for leadership.

Micheal Martin Prefers Solidarity
to Democracy
as a Goal in Foreign Policy

Micheal Martin’s abysmal record in Foreign Affairs is capped this week with his much-heralded visit to Cuba. That the Dail, the media and academia should fail to offer a proper critical evaluation of this initiative is confirmation that Ireland no longer has a culture of intelligent, pluralist debate on international relations and foreign policy.

Ireland and Cuba

Micheal Martin’s recent visit to Cuba has produced a considerable amount of press coverage, most of it unusually uncritical. Improving relations with Cuba is seen as uncontroversial. The inference is that Cuba is somehow a benign dictatorship. Opposition to the Castro  regime is viewed as “rabid” anti-Communism.

Several questions are raised by all of this and old Irish media, from the Irish Times to RTE and Newstalk, have mostly failed to address them properly.

Firstly, what is the nature of the Castro dictatorship and what is its future? Secondly, what does Micheal Martin’s visit  say about Irish foreign policy? And thirdly, why do Fianna Fail and Fine Gael pursue such policy positions when one might expect to see them shaping a more distinctive position? Finally, it would be interesting to hear the opinions of East Europeans in Ireland on Irish policy toward Cuba.

Cuba will be the last country in Latin America to undergo any kind of democratic transition in the wake of the most recent waves of democratization, those that saw both right-wing military regimes and leftist Communist regimes fall all over the world. The Irish Times recently featured articles hailing change in Cuba. Raul Castro appears to want a private sector role in agriculture and has loosened rules about mobile phone and pop consumer goods. Such changes were implemented by Janos Kadar’s Communist regime long before the end of the dictatorship. Castro insists that socialism will not be abandoned. The problem is that, like the Chinese, he sees censorship and dictatorship as even more fundamental to “socialism” than any of their economic policies. The real challenge that Cuba resists is that of democracy and human rights.

Micheal Martin had big themes on his visit. Cuba and Ireland shared something in common: by implication, we were little guys contending with big neighboring bullies. He didn’t put it that way. But that message came through clearer than Ireland’s desire for freedom in Cuba.

Ireland also opposes America’s embargo. Presumably, this is easier to say now because President Obama may open a dialog with the Castros too. But Obama has still defended the embargo. Obama is not a fascist or a warmonger. Is he just afraid of the Florida Cubans? Or is there a case for publicly arguing the case for democracy on the island?

The implication behind much of the Castro Worship in Ireland is that Cuba made a sovereign choice. But, by rejecting pluralistic elections, the Communists have created the kind of ambiguity we saw in Eastern Europe in the 1970s. Then, apologists assumed that passivity implied strong regime support, or at least forbearance. And, as I asked earlier, why should an opponent of Castro have less of a right to contest elections or criticize the Government than an opponent of Mugabe? I doubt that Mr. Martin would relegate democracy-speak to a private chat if he was visiting Harare.

Castro was part of the same global structure that oppressed people in Poland, Lithuania and the Czech lands in the 1970s. He opposed the Communist relin=quishment on power of 1989. Yes, his dictatorship was indigenous. And yes, it was less bloodthirsty than many others. And yes, there have been social gains. (On the latter, though, are we saying that a government with “good” policies has a right to rule by dictatorship if those policies might be rejected by voters? That’s the implication. On that logic, we would still have Jaruzelski in Poland if he could be counted on to provide more employment than Donald Tusk!).

Many East Europeans may oppose U.S. sanctions. However, East Europeans are more likely to take a tougher line on Castro than those in the West. We Irish have experience of a neighboring bully. So do they. But they could also tell the Minister about the nature of Communism and the value of democracy. Rabid anti-Communism was their revolutionary movement.

There is a pattern here. Martin takes a sideswipe at the United States. Under his leadership, Irish foreign policy becomes identified as the most anti-Israeli of all the European states. One would be forgiven for thinking that Ireland was a natural ally of Cuba, Viet Nam, Libya and the assorted strugglers against capitalism and imperialism. (We don’t, by the way, back North Korea). And, Syria? Micheal Martin had no problems whatsoever in promoting all-round good ties with Syria.

So why would these nominally conservative Fianna Fail Governments pursue such policies? Well, you don’t see much dissent from Fine Gael either. Except on Israel, of course. But that only exists because of the peculiar, if understandable  interests of the Jewish community and Jewish politicians.

The fact is that, beyond the EU and Anglo-Irish  issues, there is no culture of debate on foreign policy or international relations in Ireland. Irish TV documentaries, Irish Times analysis … all describe and interpret Latin American politics in a lexicon based on dependencia and condensed Marxian sociology. Perhaps it’s the residual influence of the Workers’ Party in RTE – hard to say. But Irish universities do not cultivate real debate on IR either, apart from internecine debates within the left (social democracy, Marxism, feminism and postmodernism). It is no wonder we are baffled by the East Europeans and find it difficult to make useful alliances with them on EU issues. While we fostered a conservative free market economy at home, we simultaneously produced a consensus, an orthodoxy on international issues that would fit easily into the rhetoric you hear on Radio Habana Cuba. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael politicians are so afraid of being criticized by the “progressive” media and “progressive” experts, that they just mouth this rhetoric on cue.

Next time Ireland talks about human rights, just recall the Cuba visit. When Cubans have their next revolution, let us ask where we were during their struggle. And, let us try to tell our Polish and Czech friends that supporting the European Union line on Cuba and on Syria is about …. promoting democracy??

Far from celebrating, Micheal Martin should now resign. But, of course, he will not. Moreover, his visit has not sparked any real debate in Dail Eireann, in the media or in academia. The new Irish foreign policy orthodoxy is well and truly established. Remember Michelle Obama and her “first” occasion to feel proud as an American? This week, this year, listening to Micheal Martin, listening to the silence of the nation, there is good cause to feel deeply ashamed of being Irish.

Two big economic controversies of recent times highlight the selective media reporting of environmental issues.

Firstly, there is a great anxiety that business and farming interests are pushing for the shift of agricultural production into lucrative biofuels, with a consequent downgrading of food production. This leads to food price hikes that affect the poorest worst of all.

Of course, the biofuel drive was originally part of the green campaign against hydrocarbons. It was championed by middle class leftists and greens in liberal American states and Germany. Business and farming interests were pressurized into showing their green credentials at any cost. Since they are in business to begin with, it is not surprising that they chose a market version of environmentalism.

The increases in fuel prices in Western Europe have many causes. Big oil is certainly playing a key role. However, the green campaign for disincentives for using hydrocarbons will add more levies and taxes in the years ahead. This will hurt those who travel by air, the truckers and many more. Greens now want subsidies to help the poor deal with this “necessary pain” for social progress. It is clear that a cycle from the past is reappearing before us…. regulation, taxation and more spending. When reporting on the culpability of the oil giants, the greens get little or no attention.

One wonders how long it will be before green ideology is properly challenged and investigated by a “progressive” public service broadcast media in any West European country.

There were no injuries as Irish troops got caught up in gunfire from anti-Government rebels in Chad over the last few days. The rebel offensive is now focused on areas beyond the Irish protected zone. Some rebel leaders are repoorted as having given assurances of no malign intent toward what they perceive as neutral Irish forces.

Dermot Ahern, Ireland’s Foreign Minister, has stressed Ireland’s role in opposing cluster bombs and other indiscriminate anti-personnel weapons. In an Irish Times opinion piece, March 6, he singled out Israel’s widely reported use of these weapons in South Lebanon for a particularly sharp rebuke – he was influenced by what he saw in Lebanon on a visit there last year.

It’s a one-party state. People are arrested for listening to foreign radio stations or providing those broadcasters with information. Dissidents are sent to re-education camps. Opposition people demanding free and fair elections are harassed and jailed.

Cuba?

No!

Zimbabwe?

No

Here’s a hint – they are busily embracing aspects of capitalism to distract people from demands for freedom.

Ah … China?

No!

Viet Nam’s premier is due to visit here next week at the invitation of the German and British leaders. And Bertie Ahern.

Almost everything said about Cuba in the previous post applies to Viet Nam. Except , that is, for their exploration of market economics. But our message should be clear: Viet Nam’s enjoyment of the fruits of a market opening and trade should …. must … be conditional on starting a transition to democracy like the other ex-Communist states. China is too powerful – we cannot dictate to a giant. But we can make a difference to a smaller state like Viet Nam.

Now, where are the human rights solidarity people this time?

Let me guess – Burma, Zimbabwe, ………

And David Norris…..?

Viet Nam is not so far from Timor.

Cuba. Another small island nation, trying to assert its independence from a bullying neighbor. Trying to build its own form of democracy. Right? Well, perhaps they need to do more on the democracy front.

This is the benign view of the Communist dictatorship in Cuba held, not only by the Irish Communist Party, but probably a fair chunk of the Irish intellectual and journalistic class. After conceding that “they really should do democracy, you know,” they typically apologise for or downplay the oppression that remains characteristic of that island polity. And, even the dictatorial elements are blamed on the United States. The message is clear: if the Cubans were left alone, they would sort it out. Democracy would evolve.

The United States certainly abused Cuba on many occasions in the years from 1899 until the Communist takeover. In the earliest years of the twentieth century, America was sorely tempted to join the European colonial game – witness her role in the Philippines too.

However, by the 1960s, all of this was history. From this point on, U.S. interventions were largely about countering Communist insurgencies that might have produced strategic inroads for the Soviet Union. Castro’s flirtation with the Russians, and especially his encouragement of their dangerous missile deployment, were bound to provoke the United States.

In the 1970s, Castro sent thousands of young Cuban men to fight in nasty wars in Africa, especially in Angola, under the rubric of “internationalism.” Cuba became a mercenary state for the Soviet Union. There has been some discussion among dissidents about the treatment of veterans. But Cuba didn’t have its post-Angola debate on foreign policy. It doesn’t have an Obama preaching that its overseas ventures were too costly for a poor and enfeebled nation. It doesn’t have real debate….. period.

Think about Ireland again. Suppose Ireland had allowed Britain’s enemies to plant missiles here. Suppose Irish troops were sent, not as peacekeepers, but as “internationalist fighters” to fight the British in the Malvinas-Falklands War! Suppose Ireland had supported the Axis Powers. And suppose it was ruled as a one-party Sinn Fein dictatorship! I think we would suffer more than an economic embargo.

Irish liberals are actively campaigning for elections in Zimbabwe. they would surely see a Mugabe resignation but no chance  of ZANU-PF abdication as unacceptable. But the Cuban opposition demands for freedom and democracy are no different from those of the Burmese and Zimbabwean campaigners.

Irish NGOs involved in solidarity campaigns with the Castro dynasty should be ashamed of themselves. Ireland is a better model than Cuba  – for small, developing nations. The Irish Government should openly assert this on the world stage, even in Latin America.  

Ireland should express its solidarity with Cuba, with the Cubans who are struggling to replace the Communists with a democratic government. It should join the U.S. embargo. It should offer tax incentives to firms disadvantaged by European and Canadian sanctions-busting. It should block any further European Union appeasement of the Havana regime.

Forget the Castro apologists in RTE or among the NGOs. End Fianna Fail silence. Ireland should have a lot to say about Cuba, and nothing like we have heard from Dublin so far.